what did trump know and when did he know it? i'm michael smerconish in philadelphia. the single article of impeachment against former president trump accuses him of, quote, inciting violence against the government of the united states. now, in that article, there is brief discussion of trump's conduct before january 6. his w speech he deliver that had day. so the question is whether he committed treason, bribery or

other high crimes and misdemeanors.en the functioning of the state. i find that most illuminating not what trump said or did before january 6 or even his remarks that day, but, rather, what came immediately thereafter. the time line tells you all you need to know. first, the date. why hold a rally on january 6? because that was the day congress was to perform an important but pre-if you think t role. to hold a rally on january 5 or january 7 would not have carried the prospects of stopping that process. then there is the timing of his speech, trump began at 11:55 a.m. perhaps so as to make easier that his remarks would conclude just as the congress convened for maximum imimpact.

the entire purpose was to stop what was about to happen. thereafter on the 6th, ask yourself, was trump glad or sad that the capitol was invaded? shortly after 1:00 p.m. just as trump was finishing his speech on the elipse, protestors were pushing through barriers along the perimeter of the capitol. it was game on. so let's take a look at trump's response. at 1:49 p.m., trump tweeted a link to a video of his remarks the elipse. at 26:12, riotered entered through a shattered window. it had been about an hour since trump finished his speech, but publicly he said nothing but the mayhem. as the violence escalated, at 2:13 p.m., off camera mike pence was ushered off the senate floor

into holding area. still no public condemnation from the commander in chief. instead, sometime between 2::00 and 2:15 rngs trump accidentally called senator mike lee while trying to reach tommy tuberville in an attempt to get the new senator from alabama to continue objecting to the election results. he wanted to buy time. on wednesday, tuberville revealed he told trump that pence had been taken out of senate for his own safety. he confirmed this again yesterday after trump's lawyer denied it. this information from tuberville is very significant, it demonstrates that trump knew of the danger to the congress, the vice president, and others and failed in his duties, first to take all steps to urge the rioters to stop, second to take care that the laws be obeyed, third as commander in chief to can use force to protect the nation and its citizens. this conduct is also proceed

about a difference of his attention to cause violence when minutes earlier he urged the sa people to fight. when trump finally did tweet, it was to criticize pence. at 2:24 p.m., he tweeted that pence didn't have the courage to overturn the election. and now the new details. during the attack, president trump was also engaged in a shouting match over the phone with kevin mccarthy. though we don't know the exact time this occurred, lawmakers who were briefed on the call by mccarthy quote the president as saying, well, kevin, i guess these people are more upset about the election than you are. as rioters broke into his office, a furious mccarthy reportedly begged trump to call off his supporters to no avail. the trump slk mccarthy exchange evidences trump's state of mind, it shows that he knew and approved of his supporters r rioting and did nothing. instead, the violence continued.

members of congress were running and hides for their lives, capitol police officers were being peten, th beaten, they we overwhelmed. and at the white house, the clock just ticked. finally at 2:38 p.m., trump tweeted please support our capitol police and law enforcement, they are truly on the side of our country, stay peaceful. that public comment came more than 90 minutes after the mayhem began. yesterday during the question and answer period of the impeachment trial, gop senators murkowski and collins asked the critical question. the howard baker question, if you will, what did trump know and when did he know it. specifically they asked exactly when did president trump learn of the breach of the capitol and what specific actions did he take to bring the rioting to an end and when did he take them. and please be as detailed as possible. here was the response.

>> the house managers have given us absolute -- [ inaudible ] -- to that question. we're able to piece together a time line and it goes all the way back to december 131st, january 2 there is a lot of interaction between the authorities and getting folks to have security beforehand on the day, we have a tweet at 2:38. so it was certainly sometime before then. with the rush to bring this impeachment, there 45shas been investigation into that. and that is the problem with this entire proceeding. the house managers did zero investigation. and the american people deserve a lot better than coming in here

with no evidence, hearsay on top of hearsay on top of reports that are of hearsay. due process is required here. and that was denied. >> respectfully, that is a nonanswer. look, lawyers and academics can debate whether the constitution permits the trying of a former president. or the meaning of brandenberg. and whether trump's words and actions rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor. but it doesn't take a law degree to comprehend the tick tock of what happened the afternoon of january 6, only an arsonist lets a fire burn. at 3:13 p.m. on january 6, he tweeted again, asking rioters remain peaceful, but refraining from telling them to go home. finally at 3:36 p.m., he

dispatched the national guard, that was after he initially resisted doing so, a ours has told cnn. even when at 4:17 p.m. trump tweeted a hastily recorded video, he repeated false statements about the election and said this -- >> we have to have peace. so go home, we love you, you're very special. >> the kach was secured at 5:40 p.m. and at 6:0 1 trump tweeted these are the things and events that happen when a sacred landscape election victory is so unceremoniously and viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly and unfairly treated for so long. go home with love and in peace, remember this day forever. go home with love and peace? and remember this day forever? apply your common sense, ask yourself this question, was trump glad or sad that the

capitol was invaded? it is really all you need to know when determining how this all should end. i want to know what you think. go to smerconish.com right now and answer the question, was trump glad or sad that the capitol was invaded? during yesterday's impeachment trial proceedings, a lawyer for former president trump said at no point was trump aware that mike pence was in danger. but as i just pointed out, that is contradicted by senator tuberville and a source close to pence now saying that trump's lawyer wasn't telling the truth. for more, i'm joined by "washington post" senior political reporter erin blake who has written on this subject. can the different statements from the trump offense on the time line, can they be squared, are they consistent? >> well, i think the responses

from the republican senators to the questions they asked and didn't really get answers to speaks to the idea that these were evasive answers. but i also think that the answers don't necessarily fit with one another. on the one hand, you had susan collins and lisa murkowski asking when the president became aware of the danger that these lawmakers faced. and michael van der veen offered really no details. and then mitt romney canning whether when trump tweeted that he knew mike pence personally had been in danger or been evacuated, at that point van der veen knew the answer, he knew -- he said that the president didn't know that vice president pence was in danger at that point. you know, you either go over the time line with your client and figure out what they knew and when or you don't. it is hard to have those two answers co-exist and i think that really speaks to the idea that this was probably a pretty

deliberate envision on behalf of the trump team, these are basic questions. >> so lawyer van der veen's response is to say that there was no discovery taken here, the evidentiary record doesn't contain the answer to these questions. he is right to that extent. but nothing stopped him from sorting this out with his client, the president of the united states, and to the extent that they had evidence, if they had a phone receipt, if they had something demonstrative that would show the president having taken action, they would have presented it, you'd think, right? >> yes. and as i said, the most basic questions, the time line of this situation, even mentioned that they had a time line going back to december 31, how do you build that time line talking to your client potentially, you know, mapping his tweets and the things that he said, but not nail down what happened shortly after the mayhem began at the

capitol. it is really a difficult thing to understand. i also thought it was really notable and worthy of further probing the answer on tuberville, basically disputing what the senator had said, a republican senator who is aligned with the president. again, we're talking about something where the trump team seems to be able to dispute certain things while not being able to confirm much broader and more, you know, less specific things. >> aaron, you and i are both pretty far into the weeds. so step back for a moment, sum up how do we convey to people who have been working all week and weren't able to watch everything that we watched the significance of what we're talking about. what is the takeaway? >> i think that you were right in the way that you began the program today. the impeachment article focused a lot on the january 6 speech. it mentioned the call with georgia secretary of state raf

raffensperger, but it doesn't really focus on the dereliction of duty once the process began. maybe they wanted to keep things narrow, but i think as this trial has gone on, the events of the hour plus after the barricades were first broken down and people started to approach the capitol last really become the most important thing here. and i think the couple days before when senator lee objected to how one of the house impeachment managers characterized how he had confirmed certain aspects of the tuberville call really speaks to that. this is something that would seem to warrant further investigation. i think the decision by democrats not call witnesses is certainly a decision, we'll now have both an impeachment and trial with no witnesses. but we're also seeing a 3450u6789 movement from some senators to actually call wriitnesses, dril

d d down on the time line. >> aaron blake, thank you so much for your analysis. >> thank you. >> and to something that i was saying, i was a little surprised yesterday, i went back and i pulled and read the article of impeachment. the single article of mooemt. and it is not lengthy. and it doesn't speak to that which i now find most significant. the afternoon of the 6th, not what happened before, not even president trump's remarks on the 6th, much as we parsed every word that he said and how many times did he say "fight." no, no, the afternoon is what is indefensible. katherine, what do we have from twitter verse? interesting open, but action after the fact not relevant to allegation of incitement, no evidence developed by -- i totally disagree. everything that i just set forth goes to the president's state of

mind. and his intention. and none of this can be evaluated in a advantage seem. you've got to look at the totality of the evidence. and it tells a very consistent story even before the election, of that he was saying about challenging the election results if he is not successful, that which he said after november 3, that which he said on the morning of the 6th and then standing idle li byy by and let happen. what would you say is the reason that the president didn't take action for 90 plus minutes while all of us were watching television and seeing what was taking place at the capitol? and knowing in his case that his vice president was imperiled. indefensible. one more if i have time. i believe the word delighted was used to describe trump's he demeanor by those in his orbit, he planned it, stoked it, he is -- liz, the answers to all of

these questions exist. if this were conventional litigation, let me tell you how we'd handle it. i would send interrogatories to the white house and want to know of the president exactly where he was that day, physically where he was, and who was in his orbit. and then i'd want to take depositions from the people who surrounded him, of course i'd want his testimony, but i'd want to know the observations of the very people who were with him that day and watching hill. wha him. what was his reaction, his body language, who did he call, whau what was the time of the call to mccarthy and tuberville. all of these things are find bl. and we'll find them. i want to know what you think. answer this week's survey question. it is a real simple one and yet it tells you so much. was trump glad or sad that the capitol was invaded. up ahead, a study found that 60

respect60% of the rioters have a history of money troubles. but was it just economic anxiety or something else. and trump has been accused of incitement before. as a result of this 2016 rally in louisville, kentucky. and the case was thrown out. what lessons might apply to impeachment? >> get out of here, get out. get out. get out of here.

♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) once-weekly ozempic® is helping many people with type 2 diabetes like emily lower their blood sugar. a majority of adults who took ozempic® reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. here's your a1c. oh! my a1c is under 7!

(announcer) and you may lose weight. adults who took ozempic® lost on average up to 12 pounds. i lost almost 12 pounds! oh! (announcer) for those also with known heart disease, ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as heart attack, stroke, or death. it lowers the risk. oh! and i only have to take it once a week. oh! ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) ozempic® is not for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems.

once-weekly ozempic® is helping me reach my blood sugar goal. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ you may pay as little as $25 for a 1-month or 3-month prescription. ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®. liberty mutual customizes- wait... am i in one of those liberty mutual commercials where they stand in front of the statue of liberty and talk about how liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need? uhhh... yes. huh... what happens in this one? seagulls. oh, i like it. how are you doing? (seagulls sounds) only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

the senate is about to determine whether former president trump is guilty of inciting violence with his words. it is actually the second time that trump has been formally accused with such a charge. the first came from words that he used when he was running for the presidency. it seems like ancient history now, but then candidate trump was sued for his behavior at a campaign rally back on march 1, 2016 at the kentucky

international convention center in louisville. in the middle of his stump speech, some anti-trump protestors disrupted and hear was his reaction. >> oh, look we have here some wonderful people. ahh. get out of here. get out. get out of here. we have another wise guy. go ahead. get him the hell out. get him out. incredible. all right. get him out of here. go on, get out. get out. >> what ensued as this footage from inside shows was the roughhousing of several protestors who were escorted out of the building. one of the students was interviewed on the street about what had just happened. >> i was told [ bleep ] got kicked out. >> and then what happened? >> i just got escorted out by

the police along with the people of the rally, they were pushing and shoving at me, cursing at me, yelling at me, called me every name in the book. they were disgusting and dangerous. >> so she and two others brought a suit against trump and his campaign seeking damages alleging his actions amounted to inciting to riot. that is a misdemeanor under kentucky law. the district court denied trump's motion to dismiss the claim because the court of appeals found that the plaintiffs' allegations do not satisfy the required elements of incitement to riot and trump's speech enjoys first amendment protection because he did not specifically advocate imminent lawless action. it was partly because of this crucial line where trump cautioned his followers not to hurt the protestors. >> don't hurt them. see, if i say go get 'em, i get in trouble with the press. the most dishonest human beings in the world.

the worst. if i say don't hurt them, then the press says, well, trump isn't as tough as he used to be. you can believe this? so you can't win. get them out of here. >> in its finding the court said any implication of incitement to riot is specifically negated by the accompanies words don't hurt them. if words have meaning, the admonition cannot be reasonably construed as an urging to hurt them. so this would seem like an apples to apples comparison for how the trump defense team is citing the word peacefully in his exer tagss on january 6. will it be enough to overt a conviction or is there a difference between the threshold for a private citizen in a civil suit this trump was at the time of the louisville event than in an impeachment of a u.s. president. joining me now, jonathaned adl

professor of law. he recently wrote this piece, yes, congress may impeach and remove president trump for inciting lawless behavior at the capitol. profession professor, i'm sure to a layperson, you look at louisville and what he is charged with vis-a-vis january 6 and you say that they are the same circumstance. i guess he gets off here too. what is the difference if any? >> well, i think that there are two important differences. first, we're not talking about depriving somebody of their life, liberty or property like in either a criminal trial or a civil suit as we saw back in 2016. we're talking about an impeachment trial where the question is really whether trump's conduct was incompatible with his obligations as a public official. and the other difference as the house managers showed, we're not talking about two individual statements. in the rally in kentucky, trump

said get them out of here and then he said don't hurt them. here as you were talking about earlier in the show, we have a much broader course of conduct, building up to january 6, as to it is not simply one statement that could possibly be interpreted as encouraging lawless action and then another statement saying don't do it. we rather see a long string of actions, tweets, and comments both before and after the relevance events that would to more to establish an incitement case if such a case were ever brought. >> this is confusing stuff for people. frankly, lawyers and non-lawyers alike. i'll give you another example. bra brandenburg has often been invoked, but it really doesn't apply. the first amendment really doesn't apply. there are so few standards. you can either dispute or back

up what i'm saying that the constitution provides as to what should apply. >> well, so in the context of impeachment, what we're really asking is whether or not the conduct is the sort that is incompatible with the president upholding his obligations to protect the constitution and to protect the country. we're not asking whether or not it is the sort of conduct that can and should be sanctionable this court. those are two different standards. it has always been understood that conduct that would be protected if engageed in by a private individual or that is otherwise legal can nonetheless justify the impeachment of a president or other public official. a misuse of the pardon power, misuse of the power as commander of k450e6, a failure to take action to save part of the country are all the sorts 6 abuses that we recognize as immiami impeachable. so the question the senators are being asked to answer is not the question of whether or not trump

could be prosecuted in court. it is not whether someone could sue him for damages for what occurred at the capitol. but whether or not his comments are incompatible with his obligations as the chief executive of our country. that is a different question and it is not a question about what the first amendment protects. but as i noted, even if we think that the first amendment would apply here, we're talking about a much fuller record of conduct than just what occurred on january 6. as the court noted in the kentucky case, you had one statement that might be interpreted as encouraging violence. one statement saying don't be violent. and there is one each way, so that is a thin read to sanction somebody in court given the first amendment, to sanction a private individual under the first amendment. but here we don't just have a

single statement in each direction. we have a broader course of conduct and a wide range of action that can be reasonably understood as drenkirecting and encouraging sort of horrific actions that we saw on january 6 and plenty of evidence that could lead someone to conclude that the president was both aware that this could happen and perhaps even wanted to happen. >> i like the way that you have defined it. and i think that it is beneficial to the audience to have heard you articulate what is the real standard. because i think that that is about to get very clouded with closing arguments later today. professor, thank you so much for being here. appreciate it. >> my pleasure. from social media, i think this comes from twitter, the sad reality is not -- i think you mean none of this matters. the republicans are not going to sentence him. yeah, i think you mean convict

him. i know. it is hard though not to get caught up in what should be the standard, what should matter, what evidence should they be looking at. of course i'm mindful of the reports of how many were not at their desks and who was doodling and who was filling in a man of asia, et cetera. j yeah, it is a damn shame because i feel like i paid closer attention from my sofa than some of the members of the senate have paid from the gallery. i want to remind you to go to smerconish.com and answer the survey question. it is really simple and yet i think it is so important. was trump glad or sad that the capitol was invaded? results later. up ahead, a "washington post" analysis suggests that many people who face charges for storming the capitol on january 6 have a history of financial struggles. were economic anxieties actually a motivator for this insurrection or is that giving

the defendants way too much of a pass? i'll speak to a harvard profession or who has studied radical political movements. and we're awaiting the start of today's impeachment proceedings set to get under way in less than two hours. the final vote to acquit or convict expected today and we'll take you to the capitol. ♪ bring it first time i saw you, you blew my mind ♪ ♪ i got this feeling everything was alright ♪ ♪ i've never known someone like you ♪ ♪ but when i'm with you every day is brand new ♪ ♪ new new new new ♪ ♪ new new new new ♪

new projects means new project managers. ♪ new new new new ♪ you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. the moment you sponsor a job on indeed you get a short list of quality candidates from our resume database. claim your seventy five dollar credit, when you post your first job at indeed.com/home.

rioters might have something in common. the "washington post" analyzed public records for 125 defendants and found that nearly 60% of the people facing charges related to the capitol riot showed signs of prior money troubles including bankruptcies, notices of eviction or foreclosure, bad debts or unpaid taxes over the past two decades. for example, they found that the group's bankruptcy rate was nearly twice as high as that of

the american public. the "post" reports that the financial problems are revealing because they, quote, offer potential clues for understanding why so many trump supporters many with professional careers and few with violent criminal histories were willing to participate in an attack egged on by the president's rhetoric painting him and his supporters as undeserving victims. so are the financial problems of these rioters relevant or just a distraction? joining me now is pippa northern ris, a norris, a political science professor who has co-authored cultural backlash, trump, brexit and authoritarian pop uheulismp. dr. norris, what trstruck you about the data? >> we have no arguments about who are the extremists. we hear about the proud boys, but it goes back to the ku klux

klan and other groups as well. and we know a couple things. on the one hand, it is partly about economics, but it is not just the poorest groups or the least well off, it is that middle group who often have back grounds they might be firefighter, lawyers, they may have a background in teaching. but they are kind of squeezed between the more large corporations and people with safe careers and those who are least well off. so that is one explanation. the second argument however is really about status anxiety, it is about culture, about the values which these groups have. and in particular, a range of values such as soxenophobia, nationalism, an anti-semitic, anti-muslim, anti-gay raights. and this group feels threatened by contemporary changes.

they feel like they are no longer affected by the elites in american society. >> dr. norris, you notice some don't even like the discussion of the data, they think it as a cop out of sorts. michele norris tweeted the following and she was one of many who said that let's not start with a fresh strain of economic anxiety to explain the m m misdeeds. not having it, not when generations of black and brown people have glodemonstrated gra and enterprise. you thought what? >> you shouldn't dismiss economic pressures because they are real, particularly in rural areas, particularly for those who are feeling that they have less security than they might have had say 20 or 30 years ago, people in the manufacturing industry, people in the coal mines, et cetera. but it doesn't necessarily mean that that is the defining

char characteristic. people are less well 06 parti off particularly under covid, but they don't roiot. so it used to be about traditional families, religion, and america first, that idea that america should be a large and important major power, all of those things they feel are under threat. and so it is a cultural anxiety more than an economic anxiety. and again, we only have this snapshot of some of those that were arrested. there are 400 suspects. many others who came to the capitol aren't necessarily with those backgrounds, they are much more general trump supporters who got caught up in the moment, who were just part of the mob, but the core, the group planning this well before the actual events happened, they tend to have this extremist background and you can go to groups like for example the poverty law center, they document over 800 hate groups which are now declared in canada domestic terrorists.

so this is an important group, it has been around in america for years. but this was obviously a catalytic event where they could really come to the forefront along with michigan where they were clearly when they stormed the statehouse and charlottesville before that. >> i'm limited on time, but i'll just close the loop saying this, i'm learning from you i think that their perception of their vulnerability causes them to be more susceptible to misinformation and conspiracy theory. give me 30 seconds and tell me if i'm right. >> the reason why they are vulnerable to conspiracy theory, things likes election was stolen, et cetera, is essentially what we term motivated reasoning. in other words, you have values, you have a world true, you think that the world is changing and you are not in agreement with it, you think elites are not representing you, you certainly don't trust the government, and then you get other sources of information which confirm that. and we're all subject to motivated reasoning. we find facts, we find reasons to support our values, but it is

the values, the driving motivations which are the critical things to why so many people, eight out of ten republicans in general, say that they still believe the election was fraudulent and that joe biden is not the legitimate president. >> dr. norris, that was excellent. thank you so much. >> you're welcome, michael. i can tell she's read all those books behind her. still to come, the second impeachment trial of former president trump picks up later this morning 10:00 a.m. eastern with the senate possibly voting on conviction as soon as this afternoon. what else can we expect to take place? we'll bring you the very latest from the capitol next. just remember to answer the survey yes at smerconish.com, was trump glad or sad that the capitol was invaded. all our techs are pros. they know exactly which parking lots have the strongest signal. i just don't have the bandwidth for more business.

seriously, i don't have the bandwidth. glitchy video calls with regional offices? yeah, that's my thing. with at&t business, you do the things you love. our people and network will help do the things you don't. let's take care of business. at&t.

my plaque psoriasis... ...the itching ...the burning. the stinging. my skin was no longer mine. my psoriatic arthritis, made my joints stiff, swollen... painful.

emerge tremfyant™ with tremfya®, adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis... ...can uncover clearer skin and improve symptoms at 16 weeks. tremfya® is also approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. tremfya®. emerge tremfyant™ janssen can help you explore cost support options.

the senate impeachment trial begins later this morning and it is possible we could find out if the senate will find former president trump guilty of inciting the insurrection on the capitol before then, we'll hear closing arguments from both sides, but it is still unclear what else could take place today much less after the verdict has been reached. joining me now with the latest from capitol hill, manu raju. thank you so much for being here. what are you anticipating today, what will the trial look like? >> well, it either could go very quickly and end this afternoon

and donald trump almost certain acquittal, or there could be some last minute surprises. and that is not outside of the realm of possibility at this exact moment. and that is because of developments that have occurred over the last couple days, including questions about that phone call between kevin mccarthy and donald trump and what donald trump did in the aftermath of the january 6 riot. and what he did not dio. that is something that the trump team has not been able to answer during the question and answer period when senators asked him directly. but i'm hearing that there are still discussions about possibly even calling witnesses. now, that seems unlikely. it has seemed unlikely up until this point. but it is not certain yet because there has been a debate going on internally about whether to actually call witnesses. so we will know when the senate opens this morning at 10:00 a.m., and they decide whether on-to-go forward, whether to go forward with calling witnesses, whether to forego that option. so there is a little bit of last

minute uncertainty here. and if the democrats decide not to go forward with witnesses, then we could be moving pretty quickly. closing arguments will occur followed by motions to submit evidence and then followed by the ultimate vote to convict or acquit donald trump. 67 votes are needed to convict, so 17 republicans would have to break ranks. and that simply don't happen. maybe six will join, but that is about it. but a little bit of uncertainty as we get into the final moments of this really. >> from the sidelines and paying close attention, if you were to say to me, okay, there will be witnesses, who do you most want to hear from? at the top of my list would be kevin mccarthy. number two would be whom was in the oval office and could tell us the observations of the president and actions that day. there are a lot of people who hold the answer to the questions

that we're all wondering about. >> yeah, there are a lot of people particularly people who worked in the white house. what mark med adows knew, what s conversations were like with donald trump and with others on capitol hill, pawhat pat cipolle knew. i can tell that you democrats have talked about that for some time, could they get someone who could provide some specific details about donald trump's mindset at the time the riot was happening. those people, democrats decided not to go that route because they simply thought that this would get tied up in court, this would be litigated, they just would not have time to deal with it, they thought that they had more than enough evidence. but it is not worth it because it won't lead to anything different here. but those are the kind of people that democrats in particular want, probably could shed a little more light into what happened here. >> big day ahead, big day for you. and your reporting this week has

been phenomenal. thank you so much for being here. >> thanks, michael. still to come, more of your best and worth tweets and facebook comments. and we'll give you the final survey results from smer con.com. simple question on january 6, was trump glad or sad that the capitol was invaded.

if you smell gas, you're too close. leave the structure, call 911, keep people away, and call pg&e right after so we can both respond out and keep the public safe. cyber attacks are relentlessly advancing. to end them, cybereason built a cyber security solution so advanced... it can end attacks today -- on computers, mobile devices, servers and the cloud. and deliver future-ready protection, keeping you sharp for tomorrow. join us, the defenders, in our mission. cybereason. end cyber attacks. from endpoints to everywhere. if you see wires down, treat them all as if they're hot and energized. stay away from any downed wire, call 911, and call pg&e right after so we can both respond out

and keep the public safe. ed to the survey question. was trump glad or sad that the capitol was invaded? hit me with the results. we've we've got -- and. 37,000. if you tuned in late and you think that it is a sophomore rick question, go to the cnn website and watch my opening

commentary. i'm trying to draw attention to the fact that there was a 90 plus minute window where the president had to have known and took no demonstrative action. do you think he was glad or sad. and quickly one social media if i have time. house managers should take note of smerconish and his opening commentary, very simplified and excellent points that may help sway -- you know, it is actually quite simple. we don't have to get caught up on what happened between january 3 and november 6. we don't have to get caught up in the remarks of the 6th and parse the words. just look at what happened while the capitol figuratively was burning that afternoon. see you next week. retirement, s, "what if i could retire sooner?" and so she'll get some advice from fidelity, and fidelity will help her explore some different scenarios, like saving more every month.

♪ and that has carla feeling so confident that she can enjoy her dream... right now. that's the planning effect, from fidelity.

you can't claim that as a dependent! right now. because it's inanimate! people ask me what sort of person should become a celebrity accountant. and, i tell them, "nobody should." hey, buddy. what's the damage? i bought it! the waterfall? nope! a new volkswagen. a volkswagen?! i think we're having a breakthrough here! welcome to caesar's palace. thank you.

if you smell gas, you're too close. leave the structure, call 911, keep people away, and call pg&e right after so we can both respond out and keep the public safe. if you see wires down, treat them all as if they're hot and energized. stay away from any downed wire, call 911, and call pg&e right after so we can both respond out and keep the public safe.

i'm wolf blitzer. >> and i'm erin burnett. welcome to our special coverage of day five of the second impeachment trial. >> today promises to be the most consequential day yet. we could have a decision as soon as later this afternoon. the senate is expected to convene up on capitol hill in one hour and they could debate whether wl to call witnesses as there are some major questions that still need to be answered. one key point, what did president trump know about the deadly and dangerous insurrection on january 6 and when did he know it. this is after a stunning new report about a shouting match between trump and kevin mccarthy as rioters were breaking